| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"|-|erc" |
| Date: |
08 Jan 2005 01:01:27 AM |
| Object: |
SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
I have made this claim perfectly clear for 3 years on sci.skeptic.
CLAIM : Anyone within hearing range of me will hear the Truman satelite
------- ------ -------- ----- - --- --- ------ -- ------ -------
The Truman satelite is targetted on me because I am supernatural.
Every day people say to me "I saw the Truman" and "I saw God".
INSTANT PROOF OF PARANORMAL to any skeptic investigator
who can come to Townsville, Queensland, Australia for 1 minute.
Herc
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dksqpv41597ofbhr16mi7tdj2qfihvoldv%404ax.com
Hey Trueman...
what up, my uncle told me you post here... he's did some audio on your
secret show and gave me some tapes. love the show.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1epmdv8iqmnckeqhctnf17537rt8hevjeh%404ax.com
You rule Truman.
http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=9aqbbv85c53jobkenltkil2tbsdk7m2n3p@4ax.com
I was in Townsville over the weekend, and I heard him.
Very spooky!
http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=me7hbv4snqc6gnb1cktj3cvqtiibnpm6s9@4ax.com
I'm from Townsville and YOU ARE the Truman
http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=3eb66422.779705967@news.ozemail.com.au
I'm in Townsville. We're sick of you
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.OSF.4.21.0309230859190.5384-100000%40marlin.jcu.edu.au
Do you know if the truman is living in Townsville?
I've been hearing stuff, yeah.
From: Les Norton (Les.Norton@spamfree.com.au)
Subject: OT: RESULTS: Herc-Truman test
BTW, when I was in The Strand last weekend, I didn't hear your broadcast per
se. Well, at least I thought I didn't. I think you're the Truman too.
"Therefore 100,000 Townsville residents and 1 Melbourne tourist can't be
wrong".
****************************************************************
Les just went to Townsville, didn't come nearby but heard people there talk about me
Here is Les approaching me on usenet, calls me ADAM then tells me about
the real Truman having a crush on Laurie Holden, (he tested if I knew that).
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=s1w1c.85795%24Wa.33069%40news-server.bigpond.net.au
From: Les Norton (Les.Norton@spamfree.com.au)
Subject: Re: Herc- please explain..
Date: 2004-03-03 17:56:44 PST
No worries, Adam.
AUSTRALIA SKEPTICS CANCELLED THE PARANORMAL CHALLENGE
BECAUSE THE CEO ASKED DETAILS ABOUT THE TEST AND I SAID
IT WORKS BECAUSE I'M ADAM.
THAT WAS PROOF TO HIM THAT MY CLAIM WAS A DELUSION
THEY MAKE PUBLIC OFFERS TO PARNORMAL CLAIMANTS
BUT YOU HAVE TO BE AN *ORDINARY* PARANORMAL PERSON.
THEN THEY LIED THAT MY CLAIMS WERE INCOHERENT, THEY
WERE VERY BASIC. THEN THEY DID A NEWS REPORT SAYING
THEY MUST BE DETAILED AND SPECIFIC, THIS IS A LIE, CHECK
THE CONDITIONS OF APPLICATION
--
what do women say about male sperm? sex cells never age? protein rich?
:-C==8 You'll never never know if you never never blow! :-C==8
.
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
09 Jan 2005 12:47:44 AM |
|
|
CLAIM : Anyone within hearing range of me will hear the Truman satelite
------- ------ -------- ----- - --- --- ------ -- ------ -------
The Truman satelite is targetted on me because I am supernatural.
Well listen alt.atheists I know this upsets you but your bretheren are just too lazy assed to live on.
sci.skeptic has been told for 3 years regularly that PROOF OF PARANORMAL
is publicly available in a remote Town of 100,000 pop. in Australia.
It doesn't matter how much you whinge, sci.skeptic IS IGNORANT, have no doubt!
So the 50 times bigger alt.atheism will be shown the facts and shown often.
Tell sci.skeptic to stop whinging about paranormal when they don't investigate blatant
claims with obvious proof for 3 years.
Do it now and I wont still be here is another 3 years saying LOOK AT ME
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
09 Jan 2005 01:04:36 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 10:47:44 +1000, "|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote:
Do it now and I wont still be here is another 3 years saying LOOK AT ME
Yes, you will, until they either lock you up in the looney bin, or you
decide to take your meds.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
09 Jan 2005 07:03:00 AM |
|
|
You are not paranormal; you are mentally ill. Your claims are barely
claims -they are incomprehensible. Your "talent" seems to consist of
seeing connections in emails people send you. Guess what? That's what
the human brain does - it connects the dots, whether the picture it
forms is real or not.
Nobody is "the Truman". Truman is a *fictional character in a movie. He
is not real. There is no TV show called the Truman show. These people
you quote are either in your head or they are making fun of you. You
need treatment.
The reason the debunkers like Randi and his kind won't "test" you is
because you are incoherent. Nobody can hold a conversation with you.
Get treatment.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
09 Jan 2005 02:37:25 PM |
|
|
|-|erc wrote:
CLAIM : Anyone within hearing range of me will hear the Truman satelite
------- ------ -------- ----- - --- --- ------ -- ------ -------
The Truman satelite is targetted on me because I am supernatural.
Well listen alt.atheists I know this upsets you but your bretheren are just too lazy assed to live on.
sci.skeptic has been told for 3 years regularly that PROOF OF PARANORMAL
is publicly available in a remote Town of 100,000 pop. in Australia.
It doesn't matter how much you whinge, sci.skeptic IS IGNORANT, have no doubt!
So the 50 times bigger alt.atheism will be shown the facts and shown often.
Tell sci.skeptic to stop whinging about paranormal when they don't investigate blatant
claims with obvious proof for 3 years.
Do it now and I wont still be here is another 3 years saying LOOK AT ME
Herc
You sure English is your first language ?
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
yahoo ID: hellward2004
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
09 Jan 2005 06:24:30 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:37:25 +0000, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote:
|-|erc wrote:
CLAIM : Anyone within hearing range of me will hear the Truman satelite
------- ------ -------- ----- - --- --- ------ -- ------ -------
The Truman satelite is targetted on me because I am supernatural.
Well listen alt.atheists I know this upsets you but your bretheren are just too lazy assed to live on.
sci.skeptic has been told for 3 years regularly that PROOF OF PARANORMAL
is publicly available in a remote Town of 100,000 pop. in Australia.
It doesn't matter how much you whinge, sci.skeptic IS IGNORANT, have no doubt!
So the 50 times bigger alt.atheism will be shown the facts and shown often.
Tell sci.skeptic to stop whinging about paranormal when they don't investigate blatant
claims with obvious proof for 3 years.
Do it now and I wont still be here is another 3 years saying LOOK AT ME
Herc
You sure English is your first language ?
I'm not sure language is his first language.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Landis D. Ragon" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
09 Jan 2005 11:32:47 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:37:25 +0000, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote:
|-|erc wrote:
CLAIM : Anyone within hearing range of me will hear the Truman satelite
------- ------ -------- ----- - --- --- ------ -- ------ -------
The Truman satelite is targetted on me because I am supernatural.
Well listen alt.atheists I know this upsets you but your bretheren are just too lazy assed to live on.
sci.skeptic has been told for 3 years regularly that PROOF OF PARANORMAL
is publicly available in a remote Town of 100,000 pop. in Australia.
It doesn't matter how much you whinge, sci.skeptic IS IGNORANT, have no doubt!
So the 50 times bigger alt.atheism will be shown the facts and shown often.
Tell sci.skeptic to stop whinging about paranormal when they don't investigate blatant
claims with obvious proof for 3 years.
Do it now and I wont still be here is another 3 years saying LOOK AT ME
Herc
You sure English is your first language ?
hmm, what's wrong, Jez? your Gibberish to English Translator not
working?
<grin>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
09 Jan 2005 11:40:21 PM |
|
|
Landis D. Ragon <landis.ragon.nospam@attglobal.nospam.net> wrote in
news:gnf3u0lg5bf497akdb7q90cqjq4kq59f6j@4ax.com:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:37:25 +0000, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote:
|-|erc wrote:
CLAIM : Anyone within hearing range of me will hear the Truman
satelite
------- ------ -------- ----- - --- --- ------ --
------ -------
The Truman satelite is targetted on me because I am supernatural.
Well listen alt.atheists I know this upsets you but your
bretheren are just too lazy assed to live on. sci.skeptic has been
told for 3 years regularly that PROOF OF PARANORMAL is publicly
available in a remote Town of 100,000 pop. in Australia.
It doesn't matter how much you whinge, sci.skeptic IS IGNORANT, have
no doubt! So the 50 times bigger alt.atheism will be shown the facts
and shown often.
Tell sci.skeptic to stop whinging about paranormal when they don't
investigate blatant claims with obvious proof for 3 years.
Do it now and I wont still be here is another 3 years saying LOOK AT
ME Herc
You sure English is your first language ?
hmm, what's wrong, Jez? your Gibberish to English Translator not
working?
<grin>
That's just Herc's way. He starts by asking for attention. He gets more
and more shrill, and ends up threatening to kill people. Spent some time
as a guest of the Australian government a few years back for just such
behavior.
--
Enkidu AA# 2165
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Little Me" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
14 Jan 2005 06:41:59 PM |
|
|
Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote in message
news:Xns95D99F708FA07enkiduleaddogsorg@68.6.19.6...
Landis D. Ragon <landis.ragon.nospam@attglobal.nospam.net> wrote in
news:gnf3u0lg5bf497akdb7q90cqjq4kq59f6j@4ax.com:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:37:25 +0000, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote:
hmm, what's wrong, Jez? your Gibberish to English Translator not
working?
<grin>
That's just Herc's way. He starts by asking for attention. He gets more
and more shrill, and ends up threatening to kill people. Spent some time
as a guest of the Australian government a few years back for just such
behavior.
I like Jez, be nice to Jez, please :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Landis D. Ragon" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
10 Jan 2005 04:28:39 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 23:40:21 GMT, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
Landis D. Ragon <landis.ragon.nospam@attglobal.nospam.net> wrote in
news:gnf3u0lg5bf497akdb7q90cqjq4kq59f6j@4ax.com:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:37:25 +0000, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote:
|-|erc wrote:
CLAIM : Anyone within hearing range of me will hear the Truman
satelite
------- ------ -------- ----- - --- --- ------ --
------ -------
The Truman satelite is targetted on me because I am supernatural.
Well listen alt.atheists I know this upsets you but your
bretheren are just too lazy assed to live on. sci.skeptic has been
told for 3 years regularly that PROOF OF PARANORMAL is publicly
available in a remote Town of 100,000 pop. in Australia.
It doesn't matter how much you whinge, sci.skeptic IS IGNORANT, have
no doubt! So the 50 times bigger alt.atheism will be shown the facts
and shown often.
Tell sci.skeptic to stop whinging about paranormal when they don't
investigate blatant claims with obvious proof for 3 years.
Do it now and I wont still be here is another 3 years saying LOOK AT
ME Herc
You sure English is your first language ?
hmm, what's wrong, Jez? your Gibberish to English Translator not
working?
<grin>
That's just Herc's way. He starts by asking for attention. He gets more
and more shrill, and ends up threatening to kill people. Spent some time
as a guest of the Australian government a few years back for just such
behavior.
I think the A. government let him go a tad too early.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea™" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
10 Jan 2005 08:37:35 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 04:28:39 GMT, Landis D. Ragon
<landis.ragon.nospam@attglobal.nospam.net> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 23:40:21 GMT, Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
Landis D. Ragon <landis.ragon.nospam@attglobal.nospam.net> wrote in
news:gnf3u0lg5bf497akdb7q90cqjq4kq59f6j@4ax.com:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:37:25 +0000, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote:
|-|erc wrote:
CLAIM : Anyone within hearing range of me will hear the Truman
satelite
------- ------ -------- ----- - --- --- ------ --
------ -------
The Truman satelite is targetted on me because I am supernatural.
Well listen alt.atheists I know this upsets you but your
bretheren are just too lazy assed to live on. sci.skeptic has been
told for 3 years regularly that PROOF OF PARANORMAL is publicly
available in a remote Town of 100,000 pop. in Australia.
It doesn't matter how much you whinge, sci.skeptic IS IGNORANT, have
no doubt! So the 50 times bigger alt.atheism will be shown the facts
and shown often.
Tell sci.skeptic to stop whinging about paranormal when they don't
investigate blatant claims with obvious proof for 3 years.
Do it now and I wont still be here is another 3 years saying LOOK AT
ME Herc
You sure English is your first language ?
hmm, what's wrong, Jez? your Gibberish to English Translator not
working?
<grin>
That's just Herc's way. He starts by asking for attention. He gets more
and more shrill, and ends up threatening to kill people. Spent some time
as a guest of the Australian government a few years back for just such
behavior.
I think the A. government let him go a tad too early.
The problem is, that the Australian Government thinks it's better for
such people to be free to roam. Then people can complain when the
police have to shoot a guy brandishing a knife or sword, or dose them
with pepper spray.
--
Maj. General, Fanatic Legions.
Commander of Southern Hemisphere Forces.
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
10 Jan 2005 12:09:54 AM |
|
|
Landis D. Ragon wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:37:25 +0000, Jez
<iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote:
|-|erc wrote:
CLAIM : Anyone within hearing range of me will hear the Truman satelite
------- ------ -------- ----- - --- --- ------ -- ------ -------
The Truman satelite is targetted on me because I am supernatural.
Well listen alt.atheists I know this upsets you but your bretheren are just too lazy assed to live on.
sci.skeptic has been told for 3 years regularly that PROOF OF PARANORMAL
is publicly available in a remote Town of 100,000 pop. in Australia.
It doesn't matter how much you whinge, sci.skeptic IS IGNORANT, have no doubt!
So the 50 times bigger alt.atheism will be shown the facts and shown often.
Tell sci.skeptic to stop whinging about paranormal when they don't investigate blatant
claims with obvious proof for 3 years.
Do it now and I wont still be here is another 3 years saying LOOK AT ME
Herc
You sure English is your first language ?
hmm, what's wrong, Jez? your Gibberish to English Translator not
working?
<grin>
Yeah...smoke started pouring out from it a bit earlier in the thread....
then it just went belly-up making some gurgling noises !
:)
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
yahoo ID: hellward2004
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
08 Jan 2005 01:09:43 AM |
|
|
On 07 Jan 2005, |-|erc dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
I have made this claim perfectly clear for 3 years on sci.skeptic.
CLAIM : Anyone within hearing range of me will hear the Truman
satelite
------- ------ -------- ----- - --- --- ------ --
------ -------
The Truman satelite is targetted on me because I am supernatural.
Every day people say to me "I saw the Truman" and "I saw God".
INSTANT PROOF OF PARANORMAL to any skeptic investigator
who can come to Townsville, Queensland, Australia for 1 minute.
Herc
Mental institutions were made just for people like you.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
--------
Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton Brand Ewok Skin Bedroom Slippers" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
08 Jan 2005 06:57:06 AM |
|
|
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D7AED0CC2A9vicman@216.196.97.136...
On 07 Jan 2005, |-|erc dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
I have made this claim perfectly clear for 3 years on sci.skeptic.
CLAIM : Anyone within hearing range of me will hear the Truman
satelite
------- ------ -------- ----- - --- --- ------ --
------ -------
The Truman satelite is targetted on me because I am supernatural.
Every day people say to me "I saw the Truman" and "I saw God".
INSTANT PROOF OF PARANORMAL to any skeptic investigator
who can come to Townsville, Queensland, Australia for 1 minute.
Herc
Mental institutions were made just for people like you.
Look up "Townsville Ward 10B" and you'll find where he probably used to be!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
08 Jan 2005 07:21:33 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 16:57:06 +1000 in alt.atheism, Clayton Brand Ewok
Skin Bedroom Slippers ("Clayton Brand Ewok Skin Bedroom Slippers"
<cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymail.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D7AED0CC2A9vicman@216.196.97.136...
On 07 Jan 2005, |-|erc dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
I have made this claim perfectly clear for 3 years on sci.skeptic.
CLAIM : Anyone within hearing range of me will hear the Truman
satelite
------- ------ -------- ----- - --- --- ------ --
------ -------
The Truman satelite is targetted on me because I am supernatural.
Every day people say to me "I saw the Truman" and "I saw God".
INSTANT PROOF OF PARANORMAL to any skeptic investigator
who can come to Townsville, Queensland, Australia for 1 minute.
Herc
Mental institutions were made just for people like you.
Look up "Townsville Ward 10B" and you'll find where he probably used to be!
Not too far from the truth. See:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/03/08/1015365742538.html?oneclick=true
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
08 Jan 2005 07:29:39 AM |
|
|
Not too far from the truth. See:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/03/08/1015365742538.html?oneclick=true
Then 1 year later the man making the charges is exposed on national television
for degrading applicants and backing down.
They cherry picked 74 pages of email. No criminal record.
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea™" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
08 Jan 2005 09:07:29 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 17:29:39 +1000, "|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote:
Not too far from the truth. See:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/03/08/1015365742538.html?oneclick=true
Then 1 year later the man making the charges is exposed on national television
for degrading applicants and backing down.
They cherry picked 74 pages of email. No criminal record.
You threatened to put rat poison in foods that would have been eaten
by children, you sick *****.
--
Maj. General, Fanatic Legions.
Commander of Southern Hemisphere Forces.
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
09 Jan 2005 12:43:33 AM |
|
|
You threatened to put rat poison in foods that would have been eaten
by children, you sick *****.
I did not, you are a sick ***** Wally to go on dementedly over an obviously sarchastic email sig
for 2 years.
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea™" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
09 Jan 2005 12:52:25 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 10:43:33 +1000, "|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote:
You threatened to put rat poison in foods that would have been eaten
by children, you sick *****.
I did not,
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/03/08/1015365742538.html?oneclick=true
"Senior Constable Janes said Cooper, who was arrested at Emu Park near
Rockhampton yesterday, was facing "quite serious charges".
"The threat to the public is very real," Senior Constable Janes said.
"He began emailing Barry Williams threats and demands to be tested and
payment of the $100,000.
"A number of these threats included comments such as: `***** Smith, you
owe me because you refuse to test me. Reply or pay the consequences. I
am about to put Ratsak in as much ***** Smith food as I can'."
you are a sick ***** Wally to go on dementedly over an obviously sarchastic email sig
for 2 years.
You keep on denying it, and making demented posts about skeptics
refusing to test you. I'm just presenting balance. Deal with it, or
take your meds.
--
Maj. General, Fanatic Legions.
Commander of Southern Hemisphere Forces.
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
09 Jan 2005 01:27:43 AM |
|
|
you are a sick ***** Wally to go on dementedly over an obviously sarchastic email sig
for 2 years.
You keep on denying it, and making demented posts about skeptics
refusing to test you. I'm just presenting balance. Deal with it, or
take your meds.
they are not facts. if that was factual I would be in prison. the prosecution was
ordered to cease in supreme court.
reply ASAP or face consequences
and
ps please reply in a day or two
are the 2 sentences that got misquoted into extortion, that is no bull.
When I have enough money I will sue Det Janes for slander, judges in misc.legal said that's what he did.
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea™" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
09 Jan 2005 01:51:52 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 11:27:43 +1000, "|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote:
you are a sick ***** Wally to go on dementedly over an obviously sarchastic email sig
for 2 years.
You keep on denying it, and making demented posts about skeptics
refusing to test you. I'm just presenting balance. Deal with it, or
take your meds.
they are not facts. if that was factual I would be in prison.
You *were* locked up.
the prosecution was
ordered to cease in supreme court.
reply ASAP or face consequences
and
ps please reply in a day or two
are the 2 sentences that got misquoted into extortion, that is no bull.
When I have enough money I will sue Det Janes for slander, judges in misc.legal said that's what he did.
Well, then, get a job instead of spongeing off the taxpayer.
--
Maj. General, Fanatic Legions.
Commander of Southern Hemisphere Forces.
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
09 Jan 2005 02:50:11 AM |
|
|
they are not facts. if that was factual I would be in prison.
You *were* locked up.
refused bail until the hearing. that's a big NOT guilty.
the prosecution was
ordered to cease in supreme court.
reply ASAP or face consequences
and
ps please reply in a day or two
are the 2 sentences that got misquoted into extortion, that is no bull.
When I have enough money I will sue Det Janes for slander, judges in misc.legal said that's what he did.
Well, then, get a job instead of spongeing off the taxpayer.
I make $1000s off the internet. go away fool
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea™" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
09 Jan 2005 02:55:19 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 12:50:11 +1000, "|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote:
they are not facts. if that was factual I would be in prison.
You *were* locked up.
refused bail until the hearing. that's a big NOT guilty.
At least society at large was safe from you for a short while.
the prosecution was
ordered to cease in supreme court.
reply ASAP or face consequences
and
ps please reply in a day or two
are the 2 sentences that got misquoted into extortion, that is no bull.
When I have enough money I will sue Det Janes for slander, judges in misc.legal said that's what he did.
Well, then, get a job instead of spongeing off the taxpayer.
I make $1000s off the internet. go away fool
Yeah, sure...... and you've held down jobs as well.
--
Maj. General, Fanatic Legions.
Commander of Southern Hemisphere Forces.
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
09 Jan 2005 03:12:12 AM |
|
|
"Wally AngleseaT >" <"<wanglese"@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote in
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 12:50:11 +1000, "|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote:
they are not facts. if that was factual I would be in prison.
You *were* locked up.
refused bail until the hearing. that's a big NOT guilty.
At least society at large was safe from you for a short while.
safe from getting an email signed PS please reply in a day or two...
THAT was the extortion bid! You're a bigger boy than that Wal.
the prosecution was
ordered to cease in supreme court.
reply ASAP or face consequences
and
ps please reply in a day or two
are the 2 sentences that got misquoted into extortion, that is no bull.
When I have enough money I will sue Det Janes for slander, judges in misc.legal said that's what he did.
Well, then, get a job instead of spongeing off the taxpayer.
I make $1000s off the internet. go away fool
Yeah, sure...... and you've held down jobs as well.
Western Mining Corporation, Drillex, MinePro, Buckeridge Group of Companies, UofQ,
Technical Resources, Fastrack Computers, Lighting City, TA Case Management,
Brownwon HR, Parkinson & Parkinson, plus 20 more subcontracted companies.
Herc
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Arcturian ONE" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
09 Jan 2005 10:13:55 AM |
|
|
|-|erc wrote:
you are a sick ***** Wally to go on dementedly over an obviously sarchastic email sig
for 2 years.
You keep on denying it, and making demented posts about skeptics
refusing to test you. I'm just presenting balance. Deal with it, or
take your meds.
they are not facts. if that was factual I would be in prison. the prosecution was
ordered to cease in supreme court.
reply ASAP or face consequences
and
ps please reply in a day or two
are the 2 sentences that got misquoted into extortion, that is no bull.
When I have enough money I will sue Det Janes for slander, judges in misc.legal said that's what he did.
Riiiiight. Trust those people on Usenet who say they are judges, kook.
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
09 Jan 2005 10:29:35 AM |
|
|
"The Arcturian ONE" <Arcturian1@aol.com> wrote in > |-|erc wrote:
You keep on denying it, and making demented posts about skeptics
refusing to test you. I'm just presenting balance. Deal with it, or
take your meds.
they are not facts. if that was factual I would be in prison. the prosecution was
ordered to cease in supreme court.
reply ASAP or face consequences
and
ps please reply in a day or two
are the 2 sentences that got misquoted into extortion, that is no bull.
When I have enough money I will sue Det Janes for slander, judges in misc.legal said that's what he did.
Riiiiight. Trust those people on Usenet who say they are judges, kook.
Valid point, actually on rereading she said I had no case, 1st she said I had to go
after the policeman because the newspaper is protected, but she just based that
on quote "the law makes no excuse for sarchasm", and she misquoted me
herself saying "you did write this did you not" even though it was out of context.
I wrote 74 pages to Aus Skeptics, its not the stuff of extortion, obviously a long heated
argument could be cherry picked, and joining half sentences together gave completely
new meaning nothing related to my intent. Demanding they follow their obligations
and idle sarchastic jokes were fudged together into extortion.
The email was to sarkasm I know I am right here.
THREE, I am not qualfied to comment on the technical accuracy of the quotes.
The level of grammar required to understand the single quotes ' ' around my
words were not my own words, is well above average, i.e. a minority of the public.
I suspect that most reasonably well-read people understand the rules of
grammar in regards to quotes. Paraphrasing involves putting a passage
from the source material into your own words (which is where James also
was correct when he used the phrase "such as" making it clear it was HIS
words and not a direct quote from you). A paraphrase must also be
attributed to the original source (ergo, the single [' ' ] quotes
within James' quote]. Paraphrased material is usually shorter than the
original passage, taking a somewhat broader segment of the source and
condensing it slightly.
This is _exactly_ what Senior Constable James did, and the quote HE made
was properly attributed to him by the newspaper as a "paraphrase" of
your various statements, which he predicated with the term "such as,"
which was thus _quoted verbatim from him by the newspaper_.
<snip argumentum>
FOUR, (b) it did not publish the material recklessly This is exactly false.
The police had a list of quoted sentences off me. They snipped and snipped until
the 2 sentences together, an altered reply ASAP demand next to a threat, looked like extortion.
The newspaper used EVERY TRICK IN THE BOOK to make it look like my words.
You appear to have more problems with the newspaper (and the constable)
than can be handled in a legal newsgroup, IMO. I personally see no
evidence of any malice on anyone's part here, at least as far as you
have reported it.
The truth is the newspaper quoted its interviewee, who paraphrased your
(self-affirmed) statements, which you said (implicitly or explicitly) to
Williams and the Australian Skeptics, and which was likely reasonable
under the circumstance, based upon the evidence James had before him
when he made his statement. That's how I see it, and I daresay how the
Australian Courts would see it under their qualified privilege rule for
newspapers (and law enforcement officers, see below).
<snip argumentum again which has nothing to do with the technical side
of reporting>
Do a poll. Get people to read the article, the ask them who wrote this
"reply or pay consequences. I am about to put..."
Sergeant or Mr Cooper ?????
If they have bothered to read the article, they will say that Senior
Constable James said the statement. What people say who have _heard_
about the newspaper article say, I cannot say as to their accuracy, but
what the newspaper printed and how it printed it is the issue which is
important here.
The policeman is a crook, but he's just putting people away that have a finger pointed
at them, thats what law comes down to. But the newspaper thrived on it. They
wanted those words attributed to me and they succeeded.
To prove actual malice in a defamation action to an organization with a
qualified privilege, such as a newspaper, is fairly impossible in
Australia, who relies firstly upon the US Supreme Court case of _New
York Times v. Sullivan_ requirements that "actual malice" on the part of
the newspaper have to be proven by the plaintiff in _fact_, and not
merely alleged.
See New York Times v. Sullivan at
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/376/254.html
There, the Supreme Court said:
"...Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both,
are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements
unless 'actual malice' - knowledge that statements are false or in
reckless disregard of the truth - is alleged and proved."
The Court there concluded in regards actual malice which had to be
proved:
"As to the Times, we similarly conclude that the facts do not support a
finding of actual malice. The statement by the Times' Secretary that,
apart from the padlocking allegation, he thought the advertisement was
'substantially correct,' affords no constitutional warrant for the
Alabama Supreme Court's conclusion that it was a 'cavalier ignoring of
the falsity of the advertisement [from which] the jury could not have
but been impressed with the bad faith of The Times, and its
maliciousness inferable therefrom.' The statement does not indicate
malice at the time of the publication; even if the advertisement was not
'substantially correct' - although respondent's own proofs tend to show
that it was - that opinion was at least a reasonable one, and there was
no evidence to impeach the witness' good faith in holding it. The Times'
failure to retract upon respondent's demand. although it later retracted
upon the demand of Governor Patterson, is likewise not adequate evidence
of malice for constitutional purposes.
<...>
Finally, there is evidence that the Times published the advertisement
without checking its accuracy against the news stories in the Times' own
files. The mere presence of the stories in the files does not, of
course, establish that the Times 'knew' the advertisement was false,
since the state of mind required for actual malice would have to be
brought home to the persons in the Times' organization having
responsibility for the publication of the advertisement. With respect to
the failure of those persons to make the check, the record shows that
they relied upon their knowledge of the good reputation of many of those
whose names were listed as sponsors of the advertisement, and upon the
letter from A. Philip Randolph, known to them as a responsible
individual, certifying that the use of the names was authorized. There
was testimony that the persons handling the advertisement saw nothing in
it that would render it unacceptable under the Times' policy of
rejecting advertisements containing 'attacks of a personal character';
27 their failure to reject it on this ground was not unreasonable. We
think [376 U.S. 254, 288] the evidence against the Times supports at
most a finding of negligence in failing to discover the misstatements,
and is constitutionally insufficient to show the recklessness that is
required for a finding of actual malice."
Secondly, the previous case to which I referred to you, that of
_Theophanous v. The Herald Weekly Times Ltd v. Times Ltd & Anor_, it
was held that a defamatory publication will not be actionable under the
Australian law relating to defamation if the defendant establishes that:
(a) it was unaware of the falsity of the material published; (b) it did
not publish the material recklessly (i. e., not caring if the material
was true or false); and (c) the publication was reasonable in the
circumstances.
I suspect most Australian newspapers can simply present their case that
a) they "relied upon their knowledge of the good reputation" of their
source (Senior Constable James) as a starting point, that b) there was
no knowledge on their part that what Senior Constable James said was not
"substantially correct," and c) their opinion as to the "correctness" of
what James said was at least a reasonable one, based upon their
knowledge of James' reputation as a police officer.
As such, the Courts in Australia are more likely to conclude there is
(from what I have seen alleged by you thus far) no evidence to impeach
the newspaper's good faith in holding this opinion that what James said
was "substantially correct." As such, they will have met both _New
York Times v. Sullivan_ requirements, as well as those of _Theophanous_
and, IMO, not be held liable for their reporting of what James said.
Nor do I think that by _paraphrasing your actual statements_ James
harmed you as well (you did say to Williams and the Australian Skeptics
via their suggestion box, "you ripped me off $100,000," did you not? You
did say, when they did not respond to your repeated e-mails, "please
reply in a day or two," [cut your editorial comment about sarcasm] "I am
about to put Ratsak....." did you not?).
IMO, it's also VERY likely that police statements to media, if made in
the form of paraphrase, where the information is (as you say)
"technically correct" would also be covered by the qualified privilege
granted by _NY Times v. Sullivan_ and _Theophanous_, unless direct
factual proof of malice can be shown.
In short, I don't see you having much of a case under Australian
defamation law, but if there are Australian or international lawyers who
have different opinions, please comment.
Done.
--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.
DISCLAIMER:
Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Arcturian ONE" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
09 Jan 2005 11:57:16 AM |
|
|
|-|erc wrote:
"The Arcturian ONE" <Arcturian1@aol.com> wrote in > |-|erc wrote:
You keep on denying it, and making demented posts about skeptics
refusing to test you. I'm just presenting balance. Deal with it, or
take your meds.
they are not facts. if that was factual I would be in prison. the prosecution was
ordered to cease in supreme court.
reply ASAP or face consequences
and
ps please reply in a day or two
are the 2 sentences that got misquoted into extortion, that is no bull.
When I have enough money I will sue Det Janes for slander, judges in misc.legal said that's what he did.
Riiiiight. Trust those people on Usenet who say they are judges, kook.
Valid point, actually on rereading she said I had no case,
She's right. You don't, so shut the ***** up about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
09 Jan 2005 12:09:13 PM |
|
|
"The Arcturian ONE" <Arcturian1@aol.com> wrote in
|-|erc wrote:
"The Arcturian ONE" <Arcturian1@aol.com> wrote in > |-|erc wrote:
You keep on denying it, and making demented posts about skeptics
refusing to test you. I'm just presenting balance. Deal with it, or
take your meds.
they are not facts. if that was factual I would be in prison. the prosecution was
ordered to cease in supreme court.
reply ASAP or face consequences
and
ps please reply in a day or two
are the 2 sentences that got misquoted into extortion, that is no bull.
When I have enough money I will sue Det Janes for slander, judges in misc.legal said that's what he did.
Riiiiight. Trust those people on Usenet who say they are judges, kook.
Valid point, actually on rereading she said I had no case,
She's right. You don't, so shut the ***** up about it.
To an ordinay dude maybe, only because its police against an individual.
Dear Barry, thankyou for your verrrrrry slow reply ..
PS please reply in a day or two , I"m about to put crap in your sponsors shop.
Its not a 14 year sentence extortion crime, that's what they tried to nail me for..
Barry got busted on A Current Affair the next year for abusing applicants
and not fullfilling the public offer.
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea™" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
09 Jan 2005 07:27:31 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 22:09:13 +1000, "|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote:
"The Arcturian ONE" <Arcturian1@aol.com> wrote in
|-|erc wrote:
"The Arcturian ONE" <Arcturian1@aol.com> wrote in > |-|erc wrote:
You keep on denying it, and making demented posts about skeptics
refusing to test you. I'm just presenting balance. Deal with it, or
take your meds.
they are not facts. if that was factual I would be in prison. the prosecution was
ordered to cease in supreme court.
reply ASAP or face consequences
and
ps please reply in a day or two
are the 2 sentences that got misquoted into extortion, that is no bull.
When I have enough money I will sue Det Janes for slander, judges in misc.legal said that's what he did.
Riiiiight. Trust those people on Usenet who say they are judges, kook.
Valid point, actually on rereading she said I had no case,
She's right. You don't, so shut the ***** up about it.
To an ordinay dude maybe, only because its police against an individual.
Dear Barry, thankyou for your verrrrrry slow reply ..
PS please reply in a day or two , I"m about to put crap in your sponsors shop.
No, herc the correct words you used were "I'm about to put Ratsak in
***** Smith Foods"
You threatened to poison people if you didn't get your own obsessed
way. It was a specific threat.
Its not a 14 year sentence extortion crime, that's what they tried to nail me for..
Barry got busted on A Current Affair the next year for abusing applicants
and not fullfilling the public offer.
Only in your own sad, sad dreams.
--
Maj. General, Fanatic Legions.
Commander of Southern Hemisphere Forces.
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
10 Jan 2005 12:55:27 AM |
|
|
"Wally AngleseaT >" <"<wanglese"@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au> wrote
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 22:09:13 +1000, "|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote:
"The Arcturian ONE" <Arcturian1@aol.com> wrote in
|-|erc wrote:
"The Arcturian ONE" <Arcturian1@aol.com> wrote in > |-|erc wrote:
You keep on denying it, and making demented posts about skeptics
refusing to test you. I'm just presenting balance. Deal with it, or
take your meds.
they are not facts. if that was factual I would be in prison. the prosecution was
ordered to cease in supreme court.
reply ASAP or face consequences
and
ps please reply in a day or two
are the 2 sentences that got misquoted into extortion, that is no bull.
When I have enough money I will sue Det Janes for slander, judges in misc.legal said that's what he did.
Riiiiight. Trust those people on Usenet who say they are judges, kook.
Valid point, actually on rereading she said I had no case,
She's right. You don't, so shut the ***** up about it.
To an ordinay dude maybe, only because its police against an individual.
Dear Barry, thankyou for your verrrrrry slow reply ..
PS please reply in a day or two , I"m about to put crap in your sponsors shop.
No, herc the correct words you used were "I'm about to put Ratsak in
***** Smith Foods"
You threatened to poison people if you didn't get your own obsessed
way. It was a specific threat.
all idle threats are specific you moron. it was
PLEASE REPLY IN DAY OR TWO, IM ABOUT TO...
nobody in their right mind can take that seriously
after 74 pages of email, fax, phone calls. I KNEW THE GUY,
I GAVE HIM MY NAME, MY ADDRESS, WHO I AM
He was breaking the law, I wanted police to step in, I didn't think they would be soo fucking stupid.
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: SKEPTICS ARE IGNORANT |
10 Jan 2005 01:31:41 AM |
|
|
"|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote in news:34e23aF489g0cU1@individual.net:
"Wally AngleseaT >" <"<wanglese"@spammersbigpondareparasites.net.au>
wrote
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 22:09:13 +1000, "|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote:
"The Arcturian ONE" <Arcturian1@aol.com> wrote in
|-|erc wrote:
"The Arcturian ONE" <Arcturian1@aol.com> wrote in > |-|erc
wrote:
You keep on denying it, and making demented posts about
skeptics refusing to test you. I'm just presenting balance.
Deal with it, or take your meds.
they are not facts. if that was factual I would be in prison.
the prosecution was ordered to cease in supreme court.
reply ASAP or face consequences
and
ps please reply in a day or two
are the 2 sentences that got misquoted into extortion, that is
no bull.
When I have enough money I will sue Det Janes for slander,
judges in misc.legal said that's what he did.
Riiiiight. Trust those people on Usenet who say they are judges,
kook.
Valid point, actually on rereading she said I had no case,
She's right. You don't, so shut the ***** up about it.
To an ordinay dude maybe, only because its police against an
individual.
Dear Barry, thankyou for your verrrrrry slow reply ..
PS please reply in a day or two , I"m about to put crap in your
sponsors shop.
No, herc the correct words you used were "I'm about to put Ratsak in
***** Smith Foods"
You threatened to poison people if you didn't get your own obsessed
way. It was a specific threat.
all idle threats are specific you moron. it was
PLEASE REPLY IN DAY OR TWO, IM ABOUT TO...
nobody in their right mind can take that seriously
after 74 pages of email, fax, phone calls. I KNEW THE GUY,
I GAVE HIM MY NAME, MY ADDRESS, WHO I AM
He was breaking the law, I wanted police to step in, I didn't think
they would be soo fucking stupid.
What he did may or may not have been illegal. You, however, made a clear
threat to poison food in a supermarket unless you were given money. What
you did was illegal, and such threats must be taken seriously by the
police.
If you lived in the U.S., I'd have pressed charges for your threat to
slit my daughters' throats in front of me. You want people to take what
you say seriously, but then you get upset when they DO take what you say
seriously.
--
Enkidu AA# 2165
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
